Even more amusing is that these discussions scare people into buying more guns because they're afraid they won't be able to later on.

principessa wrote:

Amusing? I can't imagine the mind that could perceive anything in these events as amusing. It does give me some insight into the mind of someone who may have guns but shouldn't, given how little you value human life.

echopomp wrote:

you find it amusement in the death of 20, 6 & 7 year olds.

you truely are a repellent person

This is why we can't have meaningful dialogue on important issues. People are so ready to be offended and find offense where there is none. He didn't say he found the events to be amusing, he said it's these discussions that are amusing. I don't know foxjack and I didn't go back to check his stance on gun control, but I think it's safe to say that he found no amusement in anyone's death. No where did he say the deaths of 20 six and seven year old kids was amusing. Argue points of debate all you want, don't make anyone out to be amused at death. He didn't say that. Didn't imply it.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

abc and the others need to get their stories straight. They have very different accounts

Fox: The vehicle the suspect drove to the school was registered to his mother. At least three guns were found -- a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car, authorities said.

CNN: The bloodshed ended when Lanza's own life did. He was found dead in a classroom with two firearms, a Glock and Sig Sauer. Another gun, a .223 Bushmaster, was found nearby in a car.

Unless he had two identical rifles I don't see how you use a rifle that's in a car, maybepolice can explain the logistical nightmare.

For the record:AR-15s are not the only weapons used by rampaging shooters. Semiautomatic handguns are also frequently employed. In Newtown, in addition to the Bushmaster M-4 carbine, two handguns were found at the scene, a 10-millimeter Glock and a 9-millimeter Sig Sauer, although the rifle is what Mr. Lanza used, pumping up to 11 bullets into each victim’s body, according to the medical examiner. All three guns belonged to his mother, officials said. - NY TIMES

He also shot in the glass in the front doors to get access.

Now for my take:I have numerous friends in the military and on police forces, and not a one of them thinks that semi-automatic weapons should be available to the public. For those that say they use them for home defense I quote one of my military friends "they do a piss poor job (semi-autos), a shot gun is the only gun some one needs to protect their home and family".

Regardless, I have seen the effects of shootings on my community and all that comes to mind is "those who don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it". Some where along the line we have forgot that strong protect the weak, that we should not turn a blind eye to injustice, and that if we refuse to get involved (in some form - voting, speaking out, etc...) we bare some responsibility because doing nothing is a choice of action.

Some have made the inane statement guns don't kill people, people kill people. We as a society don't allow people that are unfit to drive to drive. We don't allow untrained people to fly planes or operate fork lifts for pity sake. You can't vote if your a felon or not 18. you cant buy a beer if your not 21. Hell you can't buy certain types of cough medicine in mass because someone might cook up a batch a meth. But we will allow anybody to buy a semi-automatic weapon if they pass a simple background check and wait. Sometimes laws must be passed to protect a society from members of itself and really what practical purpose does a semi-automatic weapon serve other than to harm another?

“If you find it hard to laugh at yourself, I would be happy to do it for you."

Some have made the inane statement guns don't kill people, people kill people. We as a society don't allow people that are unfit to drive to drive. We don't allow untrained people to fly planes or operate fork lifts for pity sake. You can't vote if your a felon or not 18. you cant buy a beer if your not 21. Hell you can't buy certain types of cough medicine in mass because someone might cook up a batch a meth. But we will allow anybody to buy a semi-automatic weapon if they pass a simple background check and wait. Sometimes laws must be passed to protect a society from members of itself and really what practical purpose does a semi-automatic weapon serve other than to harm another?

Age has never stopped kids from acquiring beer, they usually just ask their friends or whatever (even though it’s completely illegal to buy alcohol for a minor and it can result in loss of job/jail time or at the very least a fine). However, with guns people are usually smart enough not to give them to their friends, especially if they know they aren't fit to have such weapons.

As for semi auto guns, they serve the same purpose as alcohol, fun to use; it’s a change of pace and all of that they need different skill sets to fire. I don't see why people think the only point of guns is too killing others.

And semi auto shotguns can be useful for bird hunting, sometimes the bird shot bounces off the feathers if they're flying toward you, it’s helpful not have to break aim to reload it.

I don't know if you'd really want to defend your home with a shot gun though, they are messy, depending what round is in them they could easy pass though the intruder and depending on the thickness of your wall that too.

This is why we can't have meaningful dialogue on important issues. People are so ready to be offended and find offense where there is none. He didn't say he found the events to be amusing, he said it's these discussions that are amusing. I don't know foxjack and I didn't go back to check his stance on gun control, but I think it's safe to say that he found no amusement in anyone's death. No where did he say the deaths of 20 six and seven year old kids was amusing. Argue points of debate all you want, don't make anyone out to be amused at death. He didn't say that. Didn't imply it.

Really, LM, that's the reason why we cannot have meaningful dialogue?

People are offended because they can imagine what would it feel when someone close to them would be killed in school and idiots on internet would have arguments as some people do in this and few other inspired by this situation, threads. But if you think that there is none offense to be taken that doesn't mean that there is none at all. foxjack expressed himself inappropriately, in some other similar threads as well, it is not lonely case of his, and as I see it, he is not going to stop anytime soon explaining to us how guns are great and that guns dont kill and similar shit.

People are offended because they can imagine what would it feel when someone close to them would be killed in school and idiots on internet would have arguments as some people do in this and few other inspired by this situation, threads. But if you think that there is none offense to be taken that doesn't mean that there is none at all. foxjack expressed himself inappropriately, in some other similar threads as well, it is not lonely case of his, and as I see it, he is not going to stop anytime soon explaining to us how guns are great and that guns dont kill and similar shit.

I've lost loved ones to drunk drivers; you going to get everyone to stop drinking so I don't have to worry about any alcohol related violence, or do you only care about getting rid of things that you don't enjoy? Or are those deaths acceptable to you?

I've lost loved ones to drunk drivers; you going to get everyone to stop drinking so I don't have to worry about any alcohol related violence, or do you only care about getting rid of things that you don't enjoy? Or are those deaths acceptable to you?

I am starting to doubt that you actually realize how you sound.. Acceptable for me? In what post, in what thread, whenever, did I ever direspect any kind of human existance? Ever? please, you are free to dig in into my history of posts and find me anything that can even apply on similarity of your posts. Please knock yourself out and find me if I have even suggested what you did say several times.

Enyoj? I thought you are defending pro gun law because of protection, haven't had clue that you enyoj them..so pardon me, this takes completelly different term in this discussion

That being said..I am sorry for your lost. But you have to understand that every family, in every country, on every continent has tragedies, not even one life is made of honey and flowers, we all have wounds that we are dealing with..

I am starting to doubt that you actually realize how you sound.. Acceptable for me? In what post, in what thread, whenever, did I ever direspect any kind of human existance? Ever? please, you are free to dig in into my history of posts and find me anything that can even apply on similarity of your posts. Please knock yourself out and find me if I have even suggested what you did say several times.

Enyoj? I thought you are defending pro gun law because of protection, haven't had clue that you enyoj them..so pardon me, this takes completelly different term in this discussion

That being said..I am sorry for your lost. But you have to understand that every family, in every country, on every continent has tragedies, not even one life is made of honey and flowers, we all have wounds that we are dealing with..

I was attempting to make a comparison between the two beings both are things people do to relax and both cause loss of human life due to negligence. I figured it might be easier to make a point though that, perhaps I was wrong, so sorry for even bringing it up.

I backed out a couple days ago out of disgust over the whole situation. It is still disgusting, and I agree with every one here that something needs to be done.

But here's my final post on the subject.

Going back to our original debate, Sprite, you countered my statement about deaths due to smoking with laws on where you can smoke, public ads on the dangers of smoking, and increased taxes on cigarettes. And you are correct, that measures are being taken to curb smoking.

But that doesn't affect my statement. What the majority of people on here are looking for is a complete and total ban on guns. So where 100% of smokers are killing themselves, and 100% of smokers who smoke around others are damaging the health of others, we have a "sin tax" and some scary pictures on the side of the carton, and smokers can only smoke in designated areas.

Shooters can already only shoot in designated areas. If you calculate the number of households who have guns, and the number of murders with guns, 0.05% of gun owners will kill somebody. That's assuming that each murderer only kills one person, and each gun owning household has just one gun owner, so the actual percentage is much, much less.

Since I've been vilified for using numbers before, I will state this clearly. No death is acceptable. Not even one.

But, with something that has no value except death, and 100% of it's user's are killing themselves and others, we have a "sin tax". With something that less than 0.05% of it's owners are killing themselves or others, we are screaming for a complete ban. Does that make sense? Forget the "saving one life is worth it". Take your opinions on cigarettes and guns out of the equation, and ask yourself if it truly makes sense. 100% of one are killers, 99.95% of the other are not.

That's not even considering the fact that the latter is constitutionally protected.

As far as my statements on the other amendments, don't think I'm so stupid as to think somebody would be prayed to death. But with Al'Qaeda killing people off of a religious belief, and extremist groups like WBC here in America, it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to envision a time where religious beliefs lead to death, and where preventing "peaceable gatherings" at these groups' places of worship could curtail deaths. So my questions are still valid.

But, let me say this, in closing. This is not directed at any person in particular, so don't take it personally.

If you don't want guns in your house, I applaud you. However, for me, and my house, I do not make that same choice. Pictures are floating around of the 20 innocent children killed at Sandy Hook, and they should. We should remember these poor victims, who were cut down before they had a chance to live. However, when I see these kids, I see my children. I do it every day when a little one comes in to the hospital as a victim of drowning or shooting or some other horrible accident. After I have to restrain the grieving fathers because they lash out against the doctors and nurses who tried their best to save their child, I have to find some corner and cry, because the entire time I'm there, I see my child on the table. These deaths haunt me. The little girl who had the same hair as my daughter. The little boy whose father just wanted to be by his side, but couldn't because of a divorce similar to mine. The blood pouring out of every opening as the doctors try to save their little lives. I can't get these images out of my head.

So when that "mentally unstable" person comes in, assaults the emergency room staff, and then spews threats against me as I'm tying him down, I take them to heart. When he says he's going to kill me and then rape and murder my daughter, I remember that. And I carry to make sure that little dipshit doesn't make good on his threats. So if you can go throughout life without feeling the need for a gun, more power to you. I cannot, and I will not stand aside and let you take away my rights to protect my beautiful daughter or my two amazing sons, based off of either your fear of guns, dislike or misunderstanding of guns, or the actions of the 0.05%.

Until we end this culture we have in America, where killing and death is glorified, and is a multimillion dollar revenue generator, where killers become famous, and where physical violence is an acceptable response to somebody making you mad, then I will continue to carry and fight for my right to carry. Because until that happens, killing will continue. These mentally unstable dipshits will continue to find a way to kill. And I will continue to find a way to protect my family from them. Gun bans will not stop anything, just like alcohol's prohibition did nothing, and the war on drugs has done nothing.

Age has never stopped kids from acquiring beer, they usually just ask their friends or whatever (even though it’s completely illegal to buy alcohol for a minor and it can result in loss of job/jail time or at the very least a fine). However, with guns people are usually smart enough not to give them to their friends, especially if they know they aren't fit to have such weapons.

As for semi auto guns, they serve the same purpose as alcohol, fun to use; it’s a change of pace and all of that they need different skill sets to fire. I don't see why people think the only point of guns is too killing others.

And semi auto shotguns can be useful for bird hunting, sometimes the bird shot bounces off the feathers if they're flying toward you, it’s helpful not have to break aim to reload it.

I don't know if you'd really want to defend your home with a shot gun though, they are messy, depending what round is in them they could easy pass though the intruder and depending on the thickness of your wall that too.

Seriously??? You don't want to use a shot gun because you concerned they might pass through an intruder go through a wall and injury someone else. I'll forgive you the physics lesson of the force required to pass through a human body, then pass through at least 2 sheets of dry wall and very probably part of wall framing? And I am fairly certain joe citizen isn't going to go with a shredder round, fletching, or a high energy round. As I pointed out the quote was from somebody that military, or more precisely an ex-Army Ranger and current sergeant on the SWAT team. But then again I am sure your knowledge of home defense and urban pacification surpasses his 20 plus years of knowledge.

And as far as using a semi-automatic shotgun for bird hunting, growing up and living in a massively popular hunting state (yes I have hunted myself), well god forbid you become a better shot. I know all of my serious hunting friends bird hunt with double barrel over under configurations. But seeing as you are the expert on hunting, physics, and home defense I defer to you. Or not.“If you find it hard to laugh at yourself, I would be happy to do it for you."

464 school age children were shot this year in Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws in the country, few, if any, by so called assault weapons. Don't you think your emphasis is a little misplaced?

It is silly for anyone to believe Americans are wrong for wanting to keep their gun rights. We have had the right to bare arms from the beginning. This is a fundamental right (the right to protect ourselves and to know how to use a gun). I understand with all the talk of automatic and semiautomatic weapons that these and possible all guns scare some people. But why? I was taught to shoot with a child's bee bee gun when I was very young. We as responsible people lined up targets and never shot a living thing we did not eat. In fact, my grandmother found my uncle as a young man killing sparrows with a pellet gun one morning and so, she collected two birds she found and cooked them up and made him eat them. While looking through a catalog with the latest and greatest weapons I came across a bee bee gun made to look like a assault weapon and was appalled to think that anyone would put something like this in the hands of a child. Our family would not have a desire to have this or any assault weapon around for our children to look at or touch. The guns we own now are locked in a safe or hanging on a rifle rack where they have been for generations. Our kids as well as our adults have no desire to experiment with these because we have already handled them/fired them and have no desires to use them for anything but for respectful purposes. I take it as an insult when you say you want to take a way even this small part of our lives and our ability to protect ourselves if needed. In America we have many programs that teach gun safety and granted, I understand many people cannot understand why anyone would want to fire a gun and I relate to this but for the people who are within their rights you should relate and respect it.

Its such and absolute shit thing that this is happened. Nothing was right about the situation but i do have sympathy as a psychiatric nurse and sister to an autistic and aspergers brother to the main gun man who was also aspergers . My heart goes out to all those families that were affected and wont get to see their beautiful, strong, happy children grown up. Their sure as hell in a better place then the complected world we live in.

Regards to guns, the American government should take a leaf out of Australias laws and have a good think

The Australian gun ban has been brought up a few times. From what I've read, not all guns we banned/required to be turned in. Only semi-automatic and pump action rifles and shotguns. Other guns are still allowed, to the right people. And they (the guns, not the people) must be locked in a gun safe anytime they aren't in use? Can any of you Aussies tell us your experiences before and after the gun ban? Do you feel safer now?

Some interesting facts about the Aussie system found at Gunsandcrime.org. The gun ban was in 1997.

Accidental Gun Deaths have been erratic.. before and after.

The assault rate was already on a steady incline and has continued at the same rate after the ban.

Burglary has dropped considerably, while Robbery and Armed Robbery increased immediately after the ban. But then leveled off at basically the same rate as before the gun ban.

Gun homicide has dropped considerably, but Total Homicide has stayed mostly the same. In this graph, Homicide includes manslaughter incidents

Overall Murder rates in Australia have stayed pretty much the same, with or without guns.

=====

Also, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. Yet in 2010 nearly 700 children we shot by firearms, 66 were killed. Most were not shot by an assault rifle. All guns, any gun, is dangerous and can and do kill people everyday. Restricting assault weapons won't change that. Whether these facts makes you think gun control is or isn't the answer. Some will say gun control won't stop the killing becuase people kill no matter what. Others will say all guns should be banned.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

Seriously??? You don't want to use a shot gun because you concerned they might pass through an intruder go through a wall and injury someone else. I'll forgive you the physics lesson of the force required to pass through a human body, then pass through at least 2 sheets of dry wall and very probably part of wall framing? And I am fairly certain joe citizen isn't going to go with a shredder round, fletching, or a high energy round. As I pointed out the quote was from somebody that military, or more precisely an ex-Army Ranger and current sergeant on the SWAT team. But then again I am sure your knowledge of home defense and urban pacification surpasses his 20 plus years of knowledge.

And as far as using a semi-automatic shotgun for bird hunting, growing up and living in a massively popular hunting state (yes I have hunted myself), well god forbid you become a better shot. I know all of my serious hunting friends bird hunt with double barrel over under configurations. But seeing as you are the expert on hunting, physics, and home defense I defer to you. Or not.

Just to clarify what I believe foxjack was trying to say.

You are right, shotguns are the best for home defense, because they have the best chance of 1) hitting the intruder and 2) doing the most damage. This isn't the movies, where people die after one bullet. Shotguns increase the amount of projectiles that you're sending the intruder's way, as well as the wound channel, thus increasing the effectiveness of your shot.

However, what Foxjack was probably referring to is the fact that as a responsible gun owner, using a weapon in self defense, you are responsible for every single projectile the instant you pull the trigger. If you're using #4 buckshot with 24 pellets, and 23 of them hit the intruder, but the 24th blasts through the wall and kills the person next door, you are responsible for that death. It doesn't matter that you were defending yourself; the death of the intruder will most likely be justifiable homicide, the death of your neighbor will get you sent to prison.

As far as there being a "very probable" chance of hitting the wall framing, most houses are build with the studs 12" on center, some up to 16" on center. So every 12-16", there is a stud, which measures 1.75" wide. Unless my math is off, that puts it at a 85-90% chance that you will not hit wall framing.

So yes, shotguns are the best for home defense. Apartment defense, not as much. But either way, there is a huge responsibility that some are not willing to take. Being responsible for all 24 pellets that you're spraying with each trigger pull is a lot.

Last comment (and this time I mean it): For those of you who are saying "We banned guns in X, and our gun crime went down", please take a moment to think of what you are saying. It's the same as me saying "McDonalds took the double cheeseburger off their menu, and people stopped ordering double cheeseburgers". Of course they did. When you took guns off of the murder "menu", of course there are going to be less gun crimes. But the people who dine at McDonalds will not stop going just because the double cheeseburger is gone, they'll order something else. Likewise, the people who are intent on murder aren't going to change just because the gun is "off the menu", they'll just use something else. Show me statistics where the gun ban reduced the murder and assault rates equal to the amount of gun related murders and assaults prior to the ban, and I will retract my statement. As of yet, I haven't seen any statistics that have come close to supporting that claim.

Also, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. Yet in 2010 nearly 700 children we shot by firearms, 66 were killed. Most were not shot by an assault rifle. All guns, any gun, is dangerous and can and do kill people everyday. Restricting assault weapons won't change that. Whether these facts makes you think gun control is or isn't the answer. Some will say gun control won't stop the killing becuase people kill no matter what. Others will say all guns should be banned.

I haven't seen stats that say crime gets worse after guns become restricted or banned. As such, for me, it's a net positive to have the same crime threats with less deadly weapons around. If the whole "only outlaws will have guns" bullshit held water, then crime rates would go through the roof after gun ownership restrictions took affect. I've yet to see any evidence of that. Even the NRA's pet stats don't show that.

I don't believe that we'll enter a utopian phase of society if tougher gun laws get enacted, but I see no disadvantage to doing it. "Guns-and-god" government-phobes do, but they're paranoid and creepy, so I consider the source of the protest.

It is silly for anyone to believe Americans are wrong for wanting to keep their gun rights. We have had the right to bare arms from the beginning. This is a fundamental right (the right to protect ourselves and to know how to use a gun). I understand with all the talk of automatic and semiautomatic weapons that these and possible all guns scare some people. But why? I was taught to shoot with a child's bee bee gun when I was very young. We as responsible people lined up targets and never shot a living thing we did not eat. In fact, my grandmother found my uncle as a young man killing sparrows with a pellet gun one morning and so, she collected two birds she found and cooked them up and made him eat them. While looking through a catalog with the latest and greatest weapons I came across a bee bee gun made to look like a assault weapon and was appalled to think that anyone would put something like this in the hands of a child. Our family would not have a desire to have this or any assault weapon around for our children to look at or touch. The guns we own now are locked in a safe or hanging on a rifle rack where they have been for generations. Our kids as well as our adults have no desire to experiment with these because we have already handled them/fired them and have no desires to use them for anything but for respectful purposes. I take it as an insult when you say you want to take a way even this small part of our lives and our ability to protect ourselves if needed. In America we have many programs that teach gun safety and granted, I understand many people cannot understand why anyone would want to fire a gun and I relate to this but for the people who are within their rights you should relate and respect it.

But - If my child needed to use a assault weapon she would at least have the knowledge to get it done. It is the media and people who enjoy and who bring their children up enjoying and idolizing people who kill people from cartoon up. No gun ban will change that. The good guys are the bad guys now-a-days and morals or even a story with morals is taboo to children and adult a like. You figure it out. In the meantime we reserve our rights and leave behind the crazy children of school teachers who mass murder and from whom we must defend our selves and children from in any way possible.

You want to protect your children? Don't let them believe from birth that a person can get shot to hell and walk away from it and on top of that also be the good person while defending an unhonorable deed. Don't think hiding guns from your children will stop them from getting one if they want one.

And now the conspiracy theories will begin, deflecting attention from the real issues of a violent society and culture, inadequate support and treatment for mental health issues, and inadequate regulation of and limitations on guns.

And now the conspiracy theories will begin, deflecting attention from the real issues of a violent society and culture, inadequate support and treatment for mental health issues, and inadequate regulation of and limitations on guns.

That's a little unfair. I'm asking legitimate questions and I'm not deflecting from the real issue. But I do want to know what happened, and more importantly, why it happened. Like most people, I was glued to the television immediately after it happened. There WERE several reports of a second shooter, a man wearing black and camouflage that was found hiding in the woods outside the school. I saw and heard it with my own eyes and ears as it was said on live TV. If the man found in the woods had nothing to do with the school shooting, someone should let us know. If he was involved in any capacity, we need to know. Silence on the issue will lead to conspiracy theories.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

The further we get away from this horrible tragedy, the more questions I have.

-Why are we not hearing any eyewitness accounts from teachers or adults?

You've just been in a room/school where a crazed man has shot a fuckload of people.... my response would NOT be to put myself forwards for interview. Maybe I'm just not as gutsy as some, but I would NOT want to make my face one that someone who may be in cahoots with said crazed man would recognise. Why would you risk potentially making yourself a target???

I'm amazed that this thread is still going on...

The various statistics all show that nations that have tighter rules on guns have less gun related deaths. America is right up there on the list of gun deaths per year.... 50% of the world's guns reside in America.... 5% of the world's population reside in America. Nice.

That's a little unfair. I'm asking legitimate questions and I'm not deflecting from the real issue. But I do want to know what happened, and more importantly, why it happened. Like most people, I was glued to the television immediately after it happened. There WERE several reports of a second shooter, a man wearing black and camouflage that was found hiding in the woods outside the school. I saw and heard it with my own eyes and ears as it was said on live TV. If the man found in the woods had nothing to do with the school shooting, someone should let us know. If he was involved in any capacity, we need to know. Silence on the issue will lead to conspiracy theories.

I have watched a lot of the coverage and not heard or seen any of that. I apologize if that is indeed the case and I misunderstood.

It may just be a random guy in the woods. But it is definitely worth asking about. If it has nothing to do with what happened, you'd think the authorities would have said so... they haven't. At least not that I've seen yet. These aren't the exact reports I saw live in my area, but they're essentially the same thing I did see.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

The further we get away from this horrible tragedy, the more questions I have.

-What happened to the second shooter that was found in the woods? One boy actually says on camera that he saw the man on the ground and handcuffed at the fire house.

-Other reports said that the day before the shooting, Lanza was at the school and had an "altercation" with four facutly members. Three of whom were later killed.

-Why are we not hearing any eyewitness accounts from teachers or adults?

We've all learned that there was a ton of incorrect information that was given out immediately after this happened (i.e., Ryan Lanza was the shooter, his mother was a teacher or a teacher's aide at the school and found dead in the classroom, and the brother was the dead body at the house), and I believe the second shooter in black is part of that misinformation. While watching the news the next day and the reporter was backtracking on some information, they pointed out several times that the information was very "fluid" to explain the inconsistencies. I've heard explained several times that the man in black led away in handcuffs was Ryan Lanza when he was taken into custody. We all saw him in his black coat and handcuffs being put in the car.

Also, if I were an "eyewitness" to that day, there is no f*ing way that I would be talking to reporters. It's less than a week later. I'm sure we will be learning more than we ever wanted to know in the days to come.

myself wrote:

But - If my child needed to use a assault weapon she would at least have the knowledge to get it done. It is the media and people who enjoy and who bring their children up enjoying and idolizing people who kill people from cartoon up. No gun ban will change that. The good guys are the bad guys now-a-days and morals or even a story with morals is taboo to children and adult a like. You figure it out. In the meantime we reserve our rights and leave behind the crazy children of school teachers who mass murder and from whom we must defend our selves and children from in any way possible.

My mouth literally fell open when I read that statement. Why in the world would your child ever NEED to use an assault weapon (I assume you mean when she is an adult, but I'm beginning to wonder)? I am in my 40's and have never had a need to use an assault weapon or any gun for that matter. What's more, no one that I have ever known has ever needed to use one. Unless you're in the military/law enforcement (and I'm pretty sure they'll teach you), why would there ever be a need.

What you NEED to teach your child is to be kind, loving, and compassionate towards other people and not how to blow them into little pieces.

Actually, I believe in the 2nd ammendment, however an assault weapon is a combat weapon, hense word "assault". They're made to kill large numbers of people rapidly and not made for home defense or personal protection. I own a jewelry store, and have been robbed at gun point, so I got a license to have a firearm. Forget the hunting arguement too, unless your hunting 50 bears charging you at same time.

... I'm asking legitimate questions and I'm not deflecting from the real issue. But I do want to know what happened, and more importantly, why it happened. ...

It is all kinds of us, and we are all struggling to keep a smile during the day, at one point seme lucid people crack and shit comes out of it..and that is just when 'normal' people have issues. But think about for a second on all clinically depressed people, all unhappy people, all unsatisfied people and now add to this all mentally ill people.. and now imagine to all that (to all kinds of us) a right to have a licence to posses a gun. And you know that all that 4 months of going through legitimate approval from state is just.. nothing much. Every one can own a gun or have access to it. I have noting against responsible people with guns, but we all know that only minority truly is responsible.

Dangerous toys in inppropriate hands are more than dangerous. It would be much easier to regulate gun possesion than who is capable of dealing with dangerous tool, that is why I am strongly against having a gun in home. You never know when one of your house members will crack and kill 20 plus people. I am strongly against pssessing a personlal gun in any situation.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.